[council] GAC Liaison - Update

Wed Jun 8 15:31:39 UTC 2016

Hi,

 First, I just want to thank Mason for agreeing to continue to serve as liaison. His dedication is much appreciated.

 I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who does not have extensive GNSO policy development experience for this role. This is a relatively sensitive position and a well meaning individual without the requisite skill set could do more harm than good. At this delicate stage in the transition that's a chance we just can't take. I should note that I personally considered applying for this position but felt I did not yet have the longevity or necessary experience to perform adequately in the role. This should be a very high level appointment.

 I am perturbed at the apparent allegations of any impropriety in the process. I wasn't happy with the CCT selection process, feel the noncommercial community did not receive adequate consideration for our candidates, felt the rules changed a bit somewhat as the process went forward, but at no time did I ever feel the need to make any allegations about intentional impropriety. This despite the fact the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC (three groups I have some role in representing on Council), unlike the IPC, has nobody currently represented on the leadership team. The perfect is sometimes difficult to achieve but the lack thereof does not mean the existence of intentional culpability on the part of anyone.

 I agree with the decision of the Council leadership team in this instance. If Mason is willing to continue in the role, I'd suggest we defer this appointment for the new Council to make when it takes office in the fall. Henceforth it might be a good idea to formalise appointments of this sort so they correspond with Council terms and the AGM.

 Best,

 Ed

----------------------------------------
 From: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:04 PM
To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank at fb.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update   

All,  

I am simply amazed by this.  Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council "leadership."  A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then:  

1.        Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates?    

2.       Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role?  If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period?  

3.       Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC?  As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally.  This is a PR disaster.  

Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community's volunteer.    

Best,  

Paul  

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi, 

Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. 

However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. 

Still., with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the "plus" qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council's behalf. And with the information already shared, I don't feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. 

Thanks. 

Amr 

On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote: 

Hi Susan - 

You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way.   Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: 

* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO  

And 

* A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. 

With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus".    

In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria.  This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete.  We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn.  In all  scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. 

If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.   

Thanks- 

J. 

From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 
To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi James,  

We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time.    Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?   

The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.     

I think we aim for more transparency.  

Susan Kawaguchi 

Domain Name Manager  

Facebook Legal Dept.  

From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi Paul - 

Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.   

I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. 

Thanks- 

J. 

From: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 
To: James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi James, 

I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down.  I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it.  We are not the NomCom.  Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? 

Regards, 

Paul 

From:owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi Phil & Paul - 

We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.   

Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process.  Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) 

Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. 

Hope this helps. 

Thanks- 

J. 

From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? 

Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. 

Best to all, Philip 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal 

Virtualaw LLC 

1155 F Street, NW 

Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-559-8597/Direct 

202-559-8750/Fax 

202-255-6172/Cell 

Twitter: @VlawDC 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey 

From:owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Hi James, 

Before opining, can we have the full data set?  Please let us know who expressed interest.  Thanks! 

Best, 

Paul 

From:owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update 

Dear Council Colleagues - 

Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC.  Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming.  The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. 

Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below.  It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. 

Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach.  On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity.  Thank you, Mason. 

Thanks- 

J. 

----------------------------------------

Nominations Accepted for Candidates:  1 OCT 2016 

Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice  20 OCT 

Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV 

GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV 

----------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date. 

<GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160608/c405bafc/attachment.html>